JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 29, 2000

A- de 2000

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Antonio Barrera Carbonell

✓Claimant Ulpiano Leon Melo

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Presidente De La Republica
  • Exceso en la potestad reglamentaria
  • Incompetencia para introducir modificaciones al decreto de tutela en materia de competencias
4 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se abstuvo de dirimir el conflicto de competencia entre el Juzgado 56 Penal Municipal y el Juzgado 48 Penal del Circuito de Bogotá, en la acción de tutela promovida por los ciudadanos de la referencia contra la Beneficencia de Cundinamarca, por cuanto los despachos judiciales en mención tienen como superior jerárquico común al Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Bogotá.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

See the operative part (2 points)
  1. Primero. Abstenerse de dirimir el conflicto de competencia entre el Juzgado 56 Penal Municipal y el Juzgado 48 Penal del Circuito de Bogota, en la accion de tutela promovida por Ulpiano Leon Melo, Rosalbina Moreno Zea, Claudina del Transito Moreno Caro y Bertilda Carreno contra la Beneficencia de Cundinamarca, por cuanto los despachos judiciales en mencion tienen como superior jerarquico comun al Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Bogota.
  2. Segundo. Remitir el expediente al Tribunal Superior de Bogota, Sala Penal, en forma inmediata por la Secretaria de la Corte para que, con prontitud, se adopte la decision que corresponda conforme a Derecho.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.